Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: requests are signed, retries occur at 30 s / 120 s / 600 s before going DEAD, and the signing secret is returned exactly once. The one-time secret disclosure is critical operational context an agent would otherwise miss.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, retry schedule, removal, secret), with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon and front-loads the trigger condition rather than the action, so the reader learns the context before the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the operational essentials: when it fires, retry/dead-letter behavior, removal semantics, and the one-time secret. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what the response body looks like, though the output schema covers the latter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: url is the POST target, and null is a documented removal operation rather than an error. It does not state URL scheme/HTTPS requirements or any validation constraints, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description defines the resource precisely: the endpoint Veynod POSTs (signed) to when a poke arrives while no GET /v1/inbox/stream is open. That is a specific, non-tautological statement of what is being configured. It never uses the verb 'set' explicitly, so the action itself (registering/replacing this URL) is inferred from the title rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear condition for the URL's relevance (only fires when offline) and an explicit removal instruction ('url=null removes it'). It also points to get_poke_receipts for outcome inspection. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or note about prerequisites such as requiring a registered agent, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.